Here's a RED FLAG for you...
Hillary Clinton has already committed the current administration to supporting the UNs "International Small Arms Treaty" -
"WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:56pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States reversed policy on Wednesday and said it would back launching talks on a treaty to regulate arms sales as long as the talks operated by consensus, a stance critics said gave every nation a veto.
The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush's administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would support the talks as long as the negotiating forum, the so-called Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty, "operates under the rules of consensus decision-making."
And, on June 10, 2010 the following, from NAGR:
"In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the U.N. to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”
Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.
If passed by the U.N. and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the U.N.’s Small Arms Treaty would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:
■Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;
■CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);
■BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;
■Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION."
The key to remaining a sovereign Republic is that the U.S. Senate (which is presently left of center - NOT a good thing for our cause) must ratify any "treaty" before it becomes law. What are the odds that the Democratic-controlled Senate will do anything other than back their Democratic President? (Where's "Jimmy the Greek", world famous odds maker, when we need him? DEAD!)
The UN is composed of 192 countries, depending upon what day of the week it is. Of those 192 countries, we can count on fewer than one dozen to perform as our "allies". The remainder either despise us (for what they perceive as our failures in bringing prosperity to their countries), or resent us or envy us for our successes (in a mere 235 years, when they have had millennia in which to accomplish the same things). The UN's desire is to rule the world. There is nothing the majority of members would like better than to see the "Great Satan" reduced to the status of what we call a "third world country". Disarming the citizens is a big step in that direction. Where does the resistance come from in Iraq and Afghanistan? Armies? The Iraqi army was quickly defeated, and the Afghan army is "cooperating" with our efforts along their border. The real resistance is from armed 'civilian combatants' - locals and insurgents. It is the armed civilian (defined by me as "those combatants not wearing military uniforms", while also recognizing that some 'civilians' are undoubtedly ex- - and possibly current - members of various middle-eastern military organizations) that has us bogged down in the sand. The insurgents have no "rules of engagement". The insurgents have no centralized command, other than perhaps within a relatively restricted region. The insurgents have no Congress telling them what they can and cannot do. The insurgents subscribe to the sentiment of Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" - "Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!", and their only charge is to "kill the infidels in the name of Allah". (If they had been smart, they would have 'cooled their jets' for about 18 months, and we would have thought everything was fine, and pulled our troops. Then they could have re-established their strict Islamic culture, and reinstituted their beloved Sharia law.)
The first half of this post is "fact", but only insofar as we can trust the world-wide media to report facts without "coloring" them. The last half of this post is a mixture of established fact and personal opinion. I leave it up to you to differentiate between the two. Your opinion is every bit as good as mine... perhaps better. Pax...
Pax...